The Justice Department has kicked off an unusual internal sweep, asking federal prosecutors to catalogue moments when judges stood in the way of cases tied to immigration, assaults on federal officers, or investigations involving groups the administration labels as antifa.
The directive, dispatched from the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, landed in prosecutors’ inboxes with an edge: pull together two or three examples each—instances where search warrants stalled, criminal complaints snagged, jury instructions tangled, or detention requests hit resistance. And make sure the focus includes disputes involving immigration enforcement or anti-fascist groups deemed national security concerns by the administration.
No explanation was offered for what the department plans to do with the compiled material, only a tight deadline: submit everything by Friday midday.
The request comes as the friction between the federal judiciary and the administration continues to spark. The president has spent years painting judges who rule against him as political actors in robes—accusing them of bias, obstruction, even sabotage. Several judges have faced harassment after issuing rulings that didn’t align with the administration’s agenda.
A department spokesperson doubled down on that theme, insisting that “activist judges” are thwarting lawful efforts to safeguard the country, even when higher courts have already clarified the legal terrain. Strengthening the government’s litigation posture, the spokesperson said, is now a priority.
The list-gathering order also follows Blanche’s appearance at a conservative legal gathering, where he unleashed a charged assessment of federal district courts. He accused certain judges of wielding politics from the bench and described the ongoing court clashes as nothing short of “a war.”
His remarks drew a sharp rebuke from dozens of retired judges, who warned that such rhetoric endangers the independence of the judiciary and the stability of the legal system.
Meanwhile, federal courts continue to raise concerns over the administration’s fast-moving policies—from immigration enforcement to actions affecting medical providers who work with transgender youth. One high-profile conflict erupted when Chief Judge James Boasberg concluded that officials had acted in bad faith while rushing through deportation flights during active legal proceedings. Though a federal appeals court later overturned his contempt finding, the episode underscored the turbulence now defining the relationship between the administration and the federal bench.
The Justice Department’s inquiry into “obstacles” appears poised to add another layer to that already-charged atmosphere—an inventory of friction points in a year defined by legal collisions.
